It's time to establish a national jump pilot training course. I am never for more FAA involvement in our sport, but enough is enough. There needs to be an add on rating for fixed wing pilots to fly jumpers. The course should be intense, cover everything from 182's to Otters and every plane in between. There is a history to jumpship crashes that is unfortunately being repeated at a very high expense in lives. It might not prevent further crashes, but it will prevent many I am sure. This had been discussed before, I think it's time. Diverdriver, Zing, where do we start? Just my 2 cents worth after the Perris crash 16 years ago tomorrow, and all of the incidents since.

Something so broad as to cover all jump planes will not happen. There are many jump pilots who will never fly a turbine, much less a twin-turbine such as an Otter, KA, or Skyvan. Even then, flying a KA with jumpers is very different from something like an Otter, which is far different from flying a 180 or 182.

In my experience, government never gets it right anyway when they try to set rules or standards. USPA if I'm not mistaken already has material on being a jump pilot.

It's time to establish a national jump pilot training course. I am never for more FAA involvement in our sport, but enough is enough. There needs to be an add on rating for fixed wing pilots to fly jumpers.

No there does not. Do not think that getting the FAA involved with this kind of thing is useful, besides I doubt they would even entertain the idea. If there was a need they would have already done so.

In reply to:

The course should be intense, cover everything from 182's to Otters and every plane in between.

Ok, Ill take the course, but know that I expect to be compensated for it, and I will also consider myself to be worth much more per load/hour then I have been paid previously for jump ops.

There is no way they would setup a new certification program for this. There is too much work required, besides whos going to administer the test? It would have to be a DPE, who more then likely has never flown skydivers, and who would also have to have been through the program himself, and have experience, etc.....Not to mention he would charge an examiner fee, then theres the cost of the airplane....whos going to pay that...Not me.

We have a problem. Some people think little regulation is good. Then they ruin it with stupidity and greed, then the overreaction creates lots of rules. Not addressing this problem is going to create regulation. Can we solve the problem, yes by thinking the problem can be solved. Start talking about it, asking about pilot competancy, and refusing to jump at shithole dropzones that have clueless jump pilots cause they don't care if you live and they just want you money. Support competant drop zones! Its your life, and I think there are a few people who have gone down with the ship and might have wanted their life back. Don't make that you!

I agree that changing from Part 91 to Part 135 would tighten some maintenance requirements.

Could you expand on how it would require improved pilot skills? Would that come with just upping the qualifications from commercial (in as few as 200 hours or so) to VFR Part 135 (500 hours + commercial + instrument)? Or are there other features of air taxi flying that apply to flying jumpers?

Some smaller operations, for example, the club at the University of Southern North Dakota at Hoople (faculty advisor: Professor Peter Schickele), might not have a pilot qualified to serve as a check pilot. Would there need to be special qualifications for an outside check pilot, or would the local FSDO be able to approve a check pilot whose experience was in flying passengers from A to B, but not flying jumpers?

I guess I'm asking how applying every provision of Part 135 would affect a skydiving operation, for better or worse, since I don't think that there is a way that some provisions would apply and others wouldn't.

I like sentiment your ideas have but fear that it won't make much difference at all. For every regulation created, a loophole will be found or someones signature can be bought. And over regulation will spell the death of the sport as we know it.

The Aircraft we are using in this industry were never designed for the hours and cycles that we used them to.

Cessna never planned for their light GA products to do 10,000 hours, or 30,000 cycles, but that's all some operators think they can afford.

I'd like to believe that if more time and effort is spent by this industry as a whole to educate jumpers of the dangers of improperly maintained and operated aircraft, and the additional dangers of unqualified, or reckless pilots, then those same jumpers will stop doing business with shady operators no matter how attractive the price.

I agree that in some cases that better jump pilot training is needed and I have been in this sport long enough to know that sometimes maint is lacking, but the idea of trying to adapt part 135 or require an additional FAA issued rating to fly jumpers is not the answer. With very few acceptions all US DZs are USPA member DZs. We as a community have found a way to structure a training program for the jumping side of the operation in tandem, AFF, static line, and coach programs, requiring a hierarchy of examiners to issue skydiving ratings. If there is going to be additional requirements to fly jumpers (and there are many good arguments for just that). Why not develop a program within our own community, using the expertise that we already have to structure a program and issue a non FAA issued rating to fly jumpers at USPA affiliate DZs. As far as the maint side of things go, there are already regs in place to address that. If a DZO is willing to brake those regs adding another layer is not going to change anything. Adding a group of people that know very little about day to day jump operations (FAA) and giving them more power to regulate will open a can of worms that is better left shut.

Like I said, I need more coin to fly if I have to jump through those hoops, Im sure not going to do it for a few bucks a load.

In reply to:

I don't know how or why the FAA have not come in by now with a heavy fist... It does nothing for the image of aviation as a whole having aircraft nose in.

With a statement like that you would assume they crash every other flight. Why? probably because it isnt a big deal to them.

You cant single out jumpships...It also does nothing to the image of aviation to have a cessna driver groundloop a Stearman or a Cub because they had their buddy check them out it an hour. Maybe we should change the tailwheel endorsment to a new type rating because everybody knows tailwheel aircraft are horrible, dangerous, and deadly.

Or what about all the 135/121 guys who even have type ratings and recurrency training who still manage to screw up? I've also seen complete nonsense at 141 ops, somebody whos first lesson was 6 months ago is now teaching people to fly....

For every accident there are obvious FAR violations. There are sufficient rules in place with respect to jump op safety. The accidents happen when people do not respect these rules, therefore adding more rules will just mean more violations at the post crash investigation. If jumpers wouldnt jump at the dumpy DZ's, that might help, but you know thats not going to happen.

How about just being more selective of pilots, and firing the horse's asses? I've seem pilots doing unsafe things deliberately, and being fired, then going off elsewhere to kill themselves and someone else in a perfectly good airplane. I don't think it's a maintenance issue; it's an attitude issue.

We need pilots who know to turn around in bad weather, get the nose down if the engine quits, and not run out of speed on jump run. We don't need arrogant pilots who will kill you trying to do you a favor or giving you an extra "thrill". With all that said, I've flown with some great jump pilots, and some that I will not get in a plane with again. Skydivers need to learn what is acceptable in a pilot, and what is not. Parachutist article, perhaps?